Glycosylation of the immunoglobulin G (IgG)-Fc tail is required for binding to Fc-gamma receptors (FcγRs) and complement-component C1q. A variety of IgG1-glycoforms is detected in human sera. Several groups have found global or antigen-specific skewing of IgG glycosylation, for example in autoimmune diseases, viral infections, and alloimmune reactions. The IgG glycoprofiles seem to correlate with disease outcome. Additionally, IgG-glycan composition contributes significantly to Ig-based therapies, as for example IVIg in autoimmune diseases and therapeutic antibodies for cancer treatment. The effect of the different glycan modifications, especially of fucosylation, has been studied before. However, the contribution of the 20 individual IgG glycoforms, in which the combined effect of all 4 modifications, to the IgG function has never been investigated. Here, we combined six glyco-engineering methods to generate all 20 major human IgG1-glycoforms and screened their functional capacity for FcγR and complement activity. Bisection had no effect on FcγR or C1q-binding, and sialylation had no- or little effect on FcγR binding. We confirmed that hypo-fucosylation of IgG1 increased binding to FcγRIIIa and FcγRIIIb by ~17-fold, but in addition we showed that this effect could be further increased to ~40-fold for FcγRIIIa upon simultaneous hypo-fucosylation and hyper-galactosylation, resulting in enhanced NK cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Moreover, elevated galactosylation and sialylation significantly increased (independent of fucosylation) C1q-binding, downstream complement deposition, and cytotoxicity. In conclusion, fucosylation and galactosylation are primary mediators of functional changes in IgG for FcγR- and complement-mediated effector functions, respectively, with galactose having an auxiliary role for FcγRIII-mediated functions. This knowledge could be used not only for glycan profiling of clinically important (antigen-specific) IgG but also to optimize therapeutic antibody applications.

Summary The Lyme disease agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, is primarily transmitted to vertebrates by Ixodes ticks. The classical and alternative complement pathways are important in Borrelia eradication by the vertebrate host. We recently identified a tick salivary protein, designated P8 that reduced complement-mediated killing of Borrelia. We now discover that P8 interferes with the human lectin complement cascade resulting in impaired neutrophil phagocytosis and chemotaxis, and diminished Borrelia lysis. Therefore, P8 was renamed the lectin complement pathway inhibitor (TSLPI). TSLPI-silenced ticks, or ticks exposed to TSLPI-immune mice, were hampered in Borrelia transmission. Moreover, Borrelia acquisition and persistence in tick midguts was impaired in ticks feeding on TSLPI-immunized B. burgdorferi-infected mice. Together, our findings suggest an essential role for the lectin complement cascade in Borrelia eradication and demonstrate how a vector-borne pathogen co-opts a vector protein to facilitate early mammalian infection and vector colonization.

C1q acts as the recognition unit of the first complement component, C1, and binds to immunoglobulins IgG and IgM, as well as to non-Ig ligands, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). IgG and IgM are recognized via the globular head regions of C1q (C1qGR), whereas CRP has been postulated to interact with the collagen-like region (C1qCLR). In the present study, we used a series of nine mAbs to C1q, five directed against C1qGR and four against C1qCLR, to inhibit the interaction of C1q with CRP. The F(ab′)2 of each of the five mAbs directed against C1qGR inhibited binding of C1q to polymerized IgG. These five mAbs also successfully inhibited the interaction of C1q with CRP. Moreover, these five mAbs inhibited C1 activation by CRP as well as by polymerized IgG in vitro. In contrast, none of the four mAbs against C1qCLR inhibited C1q interaction with CRP or IgG, or could reduce activation of complement by CRP or polymerized IgG. These results provide the first evidence that the interaction of C1q with CRP or IgG involves sites located in the C1qGR, whereas sites in the CLR do not seem to be involved in the physiological interaction of C1q with CRP.